Sedentary Behavior in Office Environments

Transcription

1 Sedentary Behavior in Office Environments Gregory Garrett, Doctoral Researcher Texas A&M School of Public Health Dept. of Environmental & Occupational Health

2 Educational Background BS in Kinesiology/ Exercise Science 2006 Middle Tennessee State University MA in Experimental Psychology 2013 Middle Tennessee State University Emphasis in Health & Wellness Doctoral Candidate Environmental & Occupational Health Texas A&M University Emphasis in Ergonomics, Human Factors, Health & Safety 2

3 Traditional Workstations Estimated most American adults spend 8-9 hours daily in sedentary behavior Increased health risks Obesity, cancers, and cardiovascular disease Increased Body Discomfort Low back, shoulder, and neck pain Decreased productivity 3

4 Health Impacts Prevalence of weight related risk factors High blood pressures High cholesterol High blood sugar Increased diagnosis of type 2 diabetes Stroke Cancer Gallbladder disease Osteoarthritis Sleep apnea and asthma 4

5 Prevalence Percent of adults over the age of 20 who are overweight and obese 1 : 69% Percent of adolescents age years of age obese 2 : 18.4% Percent of children 6-11 years of age who are obese 2 : 18% Percent of children 2-5 years of age who are obese 2 : 12.1% 5

6 Obesity Costs Direct cost: Estimated annual health care costs of $190 billion or nearly 21% of annual medical spending Indirect cost: Obese employees miss more days from work Obese employees work at less than full capacity Higher rates of workers compensation payouts Associated with lower wages and household income Higher incidence of accidents for obese individuals 6

7 Sit-Stand Workstations Pros: Increased health benefits Reduction in body discomfort Foot rails increase body comfort Cons: Expense : $250 - $1400 per desk Questions about sustainability and productivity performance 7

8 Hypothesis/Questions Q. Does increased activity (standing while working) at work effect productivity? H O = Increased activity at work increases productivity Q. What is the impact of standing on cognitive performance? H O = Standing while working increase cognitive performance Q. Can behavioral interventions (computer prompts) increase and sustain sit-stand desk usage? H O = Behavioral interventions increase and sustain sit-stand desk usage 8

9 Call Center Study 9

10 Productivity - Study 167 participants in a call center tracked for 6 months Treatment group Stand-biased and mechanical sit-stand desks Control Group Seated traditional desks Productivity measure Successful calls per hour 10

11 Successful Encounters Productivity Results 3 AVG Monthly Successful Encounters per Hour by Health Advisor Standing HC Sitting HC 0 Feb March April May June July August Sep 11

12 Health Advisor Monthly Comparison 226 calls per HA 133 calls per HA Stand Capable Seated 12

13 Successful Encounters Productivity Results Clinical Advisor 3 AVG Monthly Successful Encounters per Hour by Clinical Advisor Standing CA 0 Feb March April May June July August Sep Sitting CA 13

14 Clinical Advisors Monthly Comparison 161 calls per CA 93 calls per CA Stand Capable Seated 14

15 Productivity Results 15

16 Key Results Treatment group Self-reported seated 72% of day Self-reported 75% reduction in body discomfort Control Group Self-reported seated 91% of day Productivity measure Overall 46% more productive per hour Stand-capable increased 23% in first month to 53% over next 6 months Increased productivity across both job categories 16

17 Task Performance & Cognitive Workload Does standing while working effect cognitive performance? 17

18 Physical Activity Previous studies indicate cognitive processing speed influenced by changes in arousal state Studies specific to moderate/high intensity exercise Arousal states increase with physical exertion = improved cognitive performance 18

19 fnirs (functional near infrared spectroscopy) fnirs Measures brain activity based on refraction of infrared light to blood oxygenation levels Measured Pre-frontal Cortex Activation 4 sources, 8 collectors Motion artifacts were corrected with a wavelet transformation Low pass filter removed systemic responses caused by heart beat Converted to Oxygenated (HbO) and Deoxygenated (HbR) hemoglobin concentration Computed mean HbO and HbR values across blocks 19

20 Cognitive Study 100 Texas A&M Student volunteers (ages 18-22) Randomly selected from 235 participant volunteers Measure prefrontal activation during cognitive computer task N-back test assessment that measures working memory Reaction time and error rates Performed standing and sitting (counter-balanced) 20

21 N-back Results Reaction Time No significant difference in reaction times between sitting and standing conditions (p =.327) Significant difference between genders. (p =.003) Males.026 seconds faster than females in reaction times No significant difference between age groups Significant difference between order (p =.011) First order.469 seconds slower regardless of condition Error Rates No significant differences in error rates Condition p =.299 Gender p =.372 Order p =

22 Mean HbO Cortical Arousal Levels N-back Trials* 7E-08 AVG PFC Arousal by Condition 6.9E E E E E E-08 sit Condition stand *Preliminary analysis. Collapsed across all conditions 22

23 Key Points No significant differences in performance between sitting and standing Standing arousal significantly higher for standing condition Chronic exposure may improve overall cognition = increased productivity Continued analysis to determine PFC affected areas 23

24 Behavioral Interventions Computer software SitStand Coach Prompts user to stand throughout the day Tracks transitions hourly, weekly, monthly Can run in the background to determine true desk usage Tracks minutes standing/sitting 24

25 Study Protocol General office workers with electric sit-stand desks Baseline Period 6-week behind the scenes monitoring to determine current sitstand desk usage Randomly assign half the participants to treatment group (receive prompts) or control group (do not receive prompts) based on location and floor cluster randomized Experimental Period 3 months of transitions Prompting schedule was set at 6 min. standing for 30 min. sitting Surveys at 3 months post-intervention Gender, age, ht., wt., current workstation setup, pre and post body discomfort, and views about software 200 participants completed both baseline and experimental phases Two geographically separate office complexes 25

26 Mean Daily Standing Transitions Daily Usage Total active computer time between experimental and control groups were not significantly different During the 3-month experimental period, experimental group stood on avg 42% more than control group * Control (No Prompts) * Experimental (Prompts) 2.5 * * January February March April Month

27 Mean Daily Standing Transitions Monthly Transitions 3.5 Control (No Prompts) Experimental (Prompts) * 3.0 * 2.5 * * January February March April Month 27

28 Mean Daily Standing Transitions Pre and Post Transitions Control Experimental Baseline Intervention 28

29 Key Results Experimental Group 40% of group adhered to the prompting schedule No rewards for increased transitions (following prompts) Group reported decreased body discomfort and increased focused as reasons to continue to use desk Took less than a week to habituate to standing at the desk Nearly 75% of the group indicated that continued use of the computer prompts was probable or definite **More results coming soon** 29

30 Discussion Increased standing desk activity increases productivity Increased cortical arousal could mean increased cognitive behavior Use of computer prompting software increased use of sit-stand desks (behavior change) Small increase in standing time to realize benefits Productivity study Extra 75 min. per day Cognitive study- no difference in standing time between groups Behavioral study - ~14 min. standing additionally per day 30

31 Questions? 31